Re: [Jwt-reg-review] [EXTERNAL] [IANA #1160802] Re: [Ace] Requested review for IANA registration in draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params

[Mike Jones <[e-mail]>]

This draft is not making any JWT Claims registration requests, so I'm not sure why this expert review request is being made.

				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Jwt-reg-review <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Sabrina Tanamal via RT
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 4:41 PM
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Jwt-reg-review] [IANA #1160802] Re: [Ace] Requested review for IANA registration in draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params

Dear John, Michael, and Chuck, 

Have you had a chance to review the registration in draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params? 

https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-ace-oauth-params&amp;data=02%7C01%7CMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7C61ca6b3d9a5c4aab17e508d7a51d1411%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637159416642322478&amp;sdata=KyQE29ZaEQ5%2FX7i6pjzkicORKhDtawDFVjMsNk63%2FuE%3D&amp;reserved=0

Thanks,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 02:31:20PM -0700, Brian Campbell wrote:
> > Apologies, I forgot to reply-all at some earlier point and dropped 
> > the mailing lists and other cc's off the thread. Added back now.
> >
> > And also apologies because I think I need to recuse myself from the 
> > DE responsibility on the JWT registry request here. I've spent more 
> > time than I'd like to admit or really have to spare on it and am 
> > still struggling to understand.
> >
> > I appreciate you pointing out the authz-info endpoint in ACE but I 
> > still don't follow how "rs_cnf" in an access token would really work 
> > in practice.
> > The client sends the token to the RS's authz-info endpoint on an 
> > insecure connection or one that has the server auth with potentially 
> > different key and the RS stores the access token for later use. Then 
> > on resource access the RS looks up the access token (with respect to 
> > the cnf key in it) based on the key the client used in establishing 
> > a new mutually authentication connection to the RS. For the RS to 
> > choose a key for server it will use during the handshake (and as far 
> > as I know the server key is the first in the authn process of the 
> > handshake) based on the "rs_cnf" in the access token, it needs to 
> > remember and associate that client and the access token with 
> > something else (IP address?) that will be available during the 
> > handshake. It doesn't fit together for me in a way that seems likely 
> > to work or be interoperable but, like I said, I'm really struggling 
> > to understand.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 12:54 AM Seitz Ludwig 
> > <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Brian,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Comments inline.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > /Ludwig
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *From:* Brian Campbell <[e-mail]>
> > > *Sent:* den 13 januari 2020 21:22
> > > *To:* Seitz Ludwig <[e-mail]>
> > > *Subject:* Re: [Ace] Requested review for IANA registration in 
> > > draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for the response and updates Ludwig,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please bear with me while I try to wrap my head around some things.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The JWT registration request for the "rs_cnf" claim points to Sec
> > > 3.3
> > > <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
> > > Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-&amp;data=02%
> > > 7C01%7CMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7C61ca6b3d9a5c4aab17e508d7a51
> > > d1411%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637159416642322
> > > 478&amp;sdata=eGiV%2BpjnegXqzjrDbRKEFd2PLJbt9jFh3cTLQQHJCX8%3D&amp
> > > ;reserved=0
> > > 08#section-3.3>
> > > saying it is "a hint [in the access token] to the RS about which 
> > > key it should use to authenticate towards the client".  But 
> > > doesn't the client have to go through the DTLS/TLS handshake with 
> > > the RS (which is presumably when it authenticates to the client) 
> > > before it presents the access token?
> > > I'm not seeing how this would work as seems the RS won't see the 
> > > hint until after it needs it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [LS] Not in the ACE flow. We use the access token to establish 
> > > keys at the RS both for the client and the RS. We have therefore 
> > > defined a new ACE-OAuth endpoint (authz-info) at the RS. The 
> > > client can POST access tokens to this endpoint without prior 
> > > authentication.
> > >
> > > At that point, the RS only validates the signature/MAC by the AS.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Later at the time of access, the corresponding token is linked to 
> > > the access request via the pop-mechanism and the client/access 
> > > specific parts are validated (e.g. scope, subject).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hope that clarifies things a bit.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 8:30 AM Seitz Ludwig 
> > > <[e-mail]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello again Brian,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for reviewing this! Indeed the handling of JWT/JSON 
> > > interactions was handled sloppily here. I will soon issue a draft 
> > > update that specifies that the JSON-based interactions should use 
> > > the syntax from RFC7800 while the CBOR-based ones should use 
> > > ID.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This correction goes for all the use of “cnf”, “req_cnf” and 
> > > “rs_cnf”.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ludwig
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *From:* Ace <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Brian Campbell
> > > *Sent:* den 10 januari 2020 22:12
> > > *To:* Ludwig Seitz <[e-mail]>
> > > *Cc:* Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Jim 
> > > Schaad < [e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>; 
> > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Benjamin Kaduk 
> > > <[e-mail]>
> > > *Subject:* Re: [Ace] Requested review for IANA registration in 
> > > draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That  "rs_cnf" claim registration request in 9.1 points to 3.3 
> > > which says it has 'the same syntax and semantics as defined in for 
> > > the "rs_cnf"
> > > parameter', which I think is in 4.1. And 4.1 says that the "rs_cnf"
> > > values
> > > 'follow the syntax of the "cnf" claim from section 3.1 of 
> > > [I-D.ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession].' Similar to other comments 
> > > I've made today, I don't follow what that would mean for the value 
> > > of the claim when it's a JWT. And that seems like something that's 
> > > important to understand for the purpose of a JWT claims registry 
> > > request.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 4:11 AM Ludwig Seitz <[e-mail]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello JWT registry reviewers,
> > >
> > > the IESG-designated experts for the JWT claims registry have asked 
> > > me to send a review request to you about the "rs_cnf" claim 
> > > registered
> > > here:
> > >
> > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
> > > tools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-07%23section-&
> > > amp;data=02%7C01%7CMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7C61ca6b3d9a5c4aa
> > > b17e508d7a51d1411%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637
> > > 159416642322478&amp;sdata=HUDQlv7KRIJiV2AAFcK9H1jXVcglVisiCFP8lYQ8
> > > 4tc%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > > 9.1
> > >
> > > Thank you in advance for you review comments.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Ludwig
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ace mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
> > > www.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Face&amp;data=02%7C01%7CMichael
> > > .Jones%40microsoft.com%7C61ca6b3d9a5c4aab17e508d7a51d1411%7C72f988
> > > bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637159416642322478&amp;sdata=
> > > QoMEDPhQNPpLz8mv02OMYVOKKd3DfusKD%2Ftz%2B%2B11Q6I%3D&amp;reserved=
> > > 0
> > >
> > >
> > > *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and 
> > > privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).
> > > Any
> > > review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly 
> > > prohibited..
> > > If you have received this communication in error, please notify 
> > > the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any 
> > > file attachments from your computer. Thank you.*
> > >
> > >
> > > *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and 
> > > privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).
> > > Any
> > > review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly 
> > > prohibited.
> > > If you have received this communication in error, please notify 
> > > the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any 
> > > file attachments from your computer. Thank you.*
> > >
> >
> > --
> > _CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and 
> > privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). 
> > Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly 
> > prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, 
> > please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the 
> > message and any file attachments from your computer. Thank you._

_______________________________________________
Jwt-reg-review mailing list
[e-mail]
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fjwt-reg-review&amp;data=02%7C01%7CMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7C61ca6b3d9a5c4aab17e508d7a51d1411%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637159416642322478&amp;sdata=pTjdeVzoUJftCq0fdasxSzEByik0PsrbHc9x8d9%2FfeM%3D&amp;reserved=0